George

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

It is a Forbes piece insofar as it's on their website. It's not the official position of Forbes in an editorial sense.

Quote

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

No, but if you let a few dozen people shout a variety of different things on your front lawn, I'd be very skeptical of an attempt to point to one of them and say, "This one here represents the view of the homeowner."

Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

we're back to square one. you don't mind pay-to-play cronyism so long as your cronies are the ones who get to play.

the problem for me is that trump's campaign was based largely on lambasting clinton for cronyism and pay-to-play politics. he started his campaign on the pledge that he would spend only his own money and be beholden to no one. that's what happened. now he's giving influential political positions to top donors, and for some reason you're willing to simply take the man at his word that everything is above board.

"goldman sachs has total control over hillary clinton." y'all got all fired up about hillary clinton getting paid to give a speech, but nominating a goldman sachs donor for treasury secretary doesn't do anything for you?

Probably not many (he seems to be more of a Twitter kind of guy), but here's hoping that in case of a law enforcement investigation they won't find it quite so difficult (read: largely impossible) to access crucial data.

He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 11:34:06 AM by SexWarrior »

<Parsifal> Jesus Christ<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Funny, that's how many Trump supporters feel about the displeased liberals who keep trying to go "ha gotcha!!! where's the swamp draining now bucko ??? ?"

What IS draining the swamp then? Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing? I always assumed it was "remove politicians and people whose primary interests are themselves and their job and not the US citizens."

Quote

Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.

I disagree. Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want. He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution. For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal. And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist. He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words.

What IS draining the swamp then? Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing?

Honestly, that's pretty much it. To my understanding, Trump supporters are fed up with career politicians who don't listen to them. Due to inherent biases, they identify themselves as "the people", and so these politicians "don't listen to the people".

Ultimately, everyone knows that politicians are gonna be politicians. They're desperate for an alternative, but that doesn't mean overthrowing the modern model of a republic.

I disagree. Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want. He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution. For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal. And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist. He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words.

That's fair enough. All I meant was that liberals crying about whether or not the swamp is currently being drained are unlikely to alter the direction of said swamp-draining. If his voter base started complaining, fair enough, but he's already doing what they wanted.

<Parsifal> Jesus Christ<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

It seems he has made some overtures to at least a more centre-leaning left position like backing off on repealing Obamacare and looking to see what can be salvaged.

Quote

If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.